Iraq had no WMD since early 90’s, according to CIA’s report released yesterday.  However, Hussein wanted everyone to believe he did because of his fear of Iran.  So Hussein’s strategy and poor read of Bush was tragic for not only him, but for all of us.  Damn, that’s an awful irony.  

Bush argues that the “wrong war, wrong time, wrong place” sends the wrong message and injures the war effort.  Of course the evidence continues to grow that supports the “wrong war” idea, so the ultimate logic of his position is a catch-22, and we all should agree that the emperor’s clothes are made of the finest gold and silk.

A question to all of you Bush supporters: help me understand the logic of your support.  I just don’t get it. Maybe tax-and-spend – I also wondered how the hell Kerry is going to do all he’s talking about while trimming the deficit  - but how do you rationalize Bush’s foreign policy and current position in the face of what we know now?  If you only convey fear/anger knee-jerk emotion, which is how I read a lot, but not all, of your posts, then that isn’t logic or analysis.  How do you reconcile all the 9/11 global support we frittered away?  How do you reconcile the anger at America that breeds a steady stream of new terrorists and leaves us much less trusted by the rest of the world?  

I just have to confess, the more I learn and think about this, the harder it is for me to imagine how you can support this man and his administration.  

So, let me see if I understand the premise of your question.  Saddam lied to the entire world, brutalized his own people, and was generally a pest.  He had WMDs at one point, and we (like everyone else in the world) took him at his word when he behaved as though he had and was hiding them.

So Bush is evil and the policy was wrong?  I support this man and his Administration because he won't take us headlong down the road to socialism, as Kerry will.  I support him because he's willing to act on threats to the United States.  This wasn't a made up threat from Iraq; it was a threat which, while perhaps empty, was carefully cultivated by Saddam Hussein as a method of thwarting American interests.

As for the notion of "global support we frittered away," get real.  Yeah, and Bush 41 once had a 91% approval rating after the first Gulf War.  'Cept, he didn't do anything with it but behave as though he could sit on it and keep it and win re-election.  So, having done nothing with it, he lost to a second-rate bozo from a third-rate state whose main talents were more suited to straight-to-video movie studies in the SFV than to the solution of national and global problems.  America would have lost that "global support" --- really, just knee-jerk sympathy --- quite promptly, as the natural tensions in international relations asserted themselves.  At least Bush 43 has rid the world of a bloodthirsty menace, and implanted for the first time among Arabs/Muslims the seeds of democracy.  "Much less trusted by the rest of the world"?  By whom?  The likes of those crypto-socialists/neo-Commies who are protesting?  Aside from the fact that they're idiots, we never would have had their support anyway.

Maybe tax-and-spend – I also wondered how the hell Kerry is going to do all he’s talking about while trimming the deficit  -

- YOU GOT IT.  I'M ECONOMICALLY CONSERVATIVE.  WHILE I'M SOCIALLY LIBERAL AND SYMPATHESIZE WITH DEMOCRATIC CAUSES (AS DO MANY OR MOST REPUBLICANS), I'M TIRED OF HEARING FALSE PROMISES THAT THE DEMS ARE GONNA SOLVE ALL OUR SOCIAL ILLS - AND WASTE OUR TAX MONEY IN TRYING TO DO SO.  KERRY'S ASSERTION THAT HE WON'T RAISE TAXES FOR ANYONE MAKING LESS THEN 200k IS ABSURD.  

but how do you rationalize Bush’s foreign policy and current position in the face of what we know now?  

I DON'T RATIONALIZE BUSH'S FOREIGN POLICY.  HE'S BUNGLED IT IN MANY MANY WAYS.  I'M STILL REALLY WAITING FOR KERRY'S ANSWER AS TO WHAT HE'D DO DIFFERENTLY.  YEA, HE'D HAVE TRIED HARDER/LONGER TO BUILD A COALITION, BUT WHAT IF THAT DIDN'T WORK - THEN WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NEXT?  IF KERRY CAME CLEAN AND SAID HE MADE A MISTAKE IN SUPPORTING THE WAR, I MIGHT FIND MYSELF VOTING DEMOCRATIC!

If you only convey fear/anger knee-jerk emotion, which is how I read a lot, but not all, of your posts, then that isn’t logic or analysis.  

BOTH CANDIDATES ARE EXCLUSIVELY PRACTICING "BUMPER STICKER" POLICY BASED ON SLOGAN AND EMOTION.  THE WAY THEY BOTH TWIST FACTS TO THEIR FAVOR IS SICKENING AND DANGEROUS.  THANK GOD FOR THE PROLIFERATION OF THE "FACT CHECK" SITES AND SECTIONS IN THE PAPER.  PLEASE BE WISE ENOUGH TO RECOGNIZE THIS ISN'T JUST A REPUBLICAN STRATEGY!

How do you reconcile all the 9/11 global support we frittered away?  

OUR GLOBAL SUPPORT WAS WANING FAR BEFORE 9/11.  JEEZ, I REMEMBER BEING SPIT ON IN BELGUIM IN 1985 DUE TO AMERICAN CRUISE MISSILES IN W. EUROPE.  TO SAY THAT 9/11 WAS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND DECLINING US-EUROPEAN RELATIONS IS NAIVE AND WAY OVERSIMPLIFIED.  THE EASING OF THE COLD WAR, CONTINUED GROWTH OF CHINA AND INDIA COMBINED IS THE US ROLE AS WORLD HEGEMON WAS THE IMPETUS FOR THE EU IN THE FIRST PLACE.  9/11 MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN US SIMPATHY, BUT I SUSPECT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SHORT LIVED ANYWAY.

I'D LOVE TO HAVE GLOBAL SUPPORT AND VALUE OUR RELATIONSHIPS HIGHLY, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE GOTTA DO WHAT WE GOTTA DO.  EVEN KERRY SAYS THAT THE "GLOBAL TEST" ISN'T A VETO.  THIS WILL SOUND (AND IS) COCKY, BUT IF THE WORLD IS A DEMOCRACY, WE SHOULD HAVE THE PROPORTIONALLY HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES BY A WIDE MARGIN.

How do you reconcile the anger at America that breeds a steady stream of new terrorists and leaves us much less trusted by the rest of the world?  

SHOW ME ONE OUNCE OF EVIDENCE THAT THERE ARE MORE TERRORISTS NOW THAN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHOUT AN IRAQ WAR.  THE SOURCE OF TERRORISM (SOCIO-ECONOMIC DISENFRANCHISEMENT, KORANIC SUPPORT OF HOLY WAR, JEALOUSY?) IS FAR MORE DEEPLY ROOTED THAN ONE COUNTRY.

HOW'S THAT FOR A LONG WINDED RESPONSE.

could not have said it better myself! great post.

Given the choice between a waffling liberal who has no interest in the US and a weak, but predictable leader who is at least consistant....I have no other choice but Bush.

I wish there had been a real challenge within the GOP to see if there was an alternative to the current Rep. candidate, but that will never happen in ANY party with a re-electable incumbent.

I had a remote hope that Lieberman would have done well, he impresses me.

Instead, we have a choice between two undesirables. And the Dem's did NOT do themselves any favors with their choice.

If politics continues to increase the seperation and polarization between the two parties, I can see a moderate third party eventually arising. More centerist, appealing to both sides. Fiscally right of moderate and left of social issues.

... I think that the trick is to moderate the Republican and the Democratic parties.  That means that both of us (I lean to democraat) have to dump our internal constitutinties (sp?) that see the party as a tool to bludgen their agenda on the rest of society.  I (for one) am willing to dump the unions if you dump the social / religious conservatives.

Whatdaya say???

Harry

Then you have no one to blame but yourselves.  The process of picking candidates through primaries is broken because only the diehard extremes of the parties care enough to take the time to vote.  So we get candidates that are behoden to those extremes, wow, this is rocket science!!!
    We will get more moderate parties when more moderate people take the time to vote in primaries.  Until then, make do with what you get.

AS WE ARE AT WAR!  If Kerry wins, he will face problems that he has not thought of, his plans will partially derail because the foes that he will be facing are so extreme that they will stop at nothing to maintain their fanatical ways, he will be in the same positions as Bush unless he decides to cut and run.  That said, I still believe that if we could have frozen time in Iraq right about the time that France and Germany were digging in their heels and inspected the country without Saddam's games and constant roadblocks, many things would have been found.  I do not believe that there were massive stockpiles, however, I would be surprised that many WMD class munitions and manufacturing process equip was shipped out of there to Syria, Jordan and God knows where else.

 If the very reason that he would not show proof that he had destroyed all assets and abated his ability to manufacture was his use of WMD as a trump card over Iran, then that was bad poker on his part.

 I still firmly believe that if Bush had not pulled the trigger on Saddam, our planes would still be getting shot at patrolling his borders, he would still be using the oil for food program to build his palaces, finance (reward) suicide bombers in Isreal, finance anyone opposing the USA and all the while, reastablishing himself as the #1 menace in the Middle East.  Remember, he believed he was destined to rule Arabia with the rest of the Arabs willing or not.

 Final point on Saddam, I believe if we had not dealt with him now, we would have been dealing with at some point in time, but only after he had a chance to rebuild his army, WMD or both.

 Now, picture this in 10 years.  A USA friendly democratic Iraq.  

BTW, the terrorists are not going after the USA because we are in Iraq.  They are doing so because our presence is in the Middle East and they hate freedom and the Western culture.  They have hated our presence in the Middle East for decades, not just under Republican administrations.

One point - to your challenge, "show me one ounce of evidence that there are more terriorists now than there would have been without an Iraq war?"

There is no direct evidence I remember seeing.  I deduce this opinion based on these facts: A recently published poll of people in other countries that measured their attitudes re America showed widespread and significant downturn.  This is consistent with what I read overseas and hear from people from other countries.  

It would be logical to predict that this global climate generates increased hatred at the extremes than otherwise be true had we retained most of the 9/11 sentiment, and this translates into more terrorists focused on us.  

Now, back to you: what's the data and logic behind your belief this isn't the case?

The one thing I have lived long enough to grasp is that your idea of a democratic Iraq in 10 yrs is a real possibility if we stay the course.  

My concerns is whether this was where to focus and how to focus.  Back to the ideas in The Pentagon's New Map.  There is a clear and compelling argument about America using its power to do just that in several countries.  

But the process is everything, because that's what sets the tone of our motive to the rest of the world.  To exert global power requires greater consensus than we had if we don't want to have the whole globe lined up with suitcases of nuclear bombs walking down Times Square.

And Iraq just didn't make sense as the 1st step.  Although hindsight is 20-20 and everyone seemed to believe Hussein had WMD's, doesn't it strike you as a little impetuous?  It did to me at the time. And now as his reason is refuted, retaining the support needed to realize this 10 year vision is really injured.  

Anyway, that's how I think about it.

Bush was focusing on improving education and our economy before 9/11.  After 9/11, he knew we were at war and had to go after the terrorists.  

Things are going great in Afghanistan.  They're gonna have elections and they're gonna build a democratic gov.  Things are going great in Iraq, 15 of the 18 provinces are fine. Kurds are doing great, Shiites are doing great.  Sunni's will come around. They're building a gov. and are gonna have elections.

Bush went to the corrupt UN.  The UN is corrupt from head to toe.  PLEASE READ STEYNONLINE.   Mark Steyn is awesome.  You guys gotta read him.  He's on Hugh Hewitt alot too.  He's really good. UN would never give up their embezzling cut in the oil for food fiasco.  Those thugs at the UN only care about stuffing their Swiss bank accounts.  

France, Germany, Russia, Ukraine all were in on the oil for food fiasco.  Saddam was paying them all off.  They would never support destroying their scam.

James86 hit the nail on the head head and I don't want to be redundent but it's important to remember that Saddam supported Terrorist attacks in Israel and had all kinds of casual links to  terrorists and supported their causes.

Bush wants freedom here at home.  If Bush is president, there is a good chance that we will get rid of the Capital gains tax.  And I believe that there is a better chance of our hobby becoming legal under Bush and marijuania becoming legal under Bush for glaucoma, chemo therapy, anxiety therapy and treatment for alcoholism.

Kerry and the Democrats want to control your entire life.  Democrats will not let you smoke a cigarette!!!  What makes you think they'll legalize marijuana, or our hobby!!  Democrats want nothing but power.

Vote for Bush- TAX CUTS NOW!!  THE UN MUST BE DESTROYED- Mark Steyn.

PS John Kerry is a complete mistery cause he says so many different things.

Fair criticism.  Lets clarify: I think the "number of terrorists" issue is separate from the "anti-US sentiment" issue.

On the latter, there certainly is evidence that anti-US sentiment is growing, but, as I said, its been growing for decades due to factors far beyond the Iraq war.  Global alliances shift over time: maybe this signals that as the EU gels, our relationship with Western Europe will become more arms-length.  I do really think the confluence of post cold-war, terrorism, and gloablism/anti-globalism will really recast the geopolitical environment 10-20 years from now.

On the former, who really know how many terrorists there are, would have been, etc?  You might be correct.  My point is that any action we take against the "terrorist community" will be used as a recruiting tool by those who sponsor terrorism.  While the ultimate goal in the US public's heart is to capture Osama, imagine the martyr power that would unleash.  

Think of it this way: What action could we possibly take against terrorism that WOULDN'T engender anti-west or anti-US sentiment and create more fodder for the organizers?  Terrorists don't seem to mind bombing Europe or Asia, so don't think the "global test" would have helped matters.  And, while Spain cowardly approach is appealing to some, we can't prevent palestinian kids from downloading britney spears pictures or the enraged mullah that teaches him that the west is evil.

-- Modified on 10/8/2004 9:29:32 AM